Due a police visit - help

adouglasmhor

coolcait wrote: »

I can't really comment on the reasons why you were arrested - you've given your point of view; I can see alternative points of view; there may be others.

The fact that you were kept in prison so long before beign bailed is an unfortunate effect of the timing of your arrest.

i'm now confused as to how/why you were released. did a jury find you 'not guilty', or was the case dismissed before it went to court?

you don't have to answer. That's just the question running through my head.

Edited to add - you edited your post while I was posting. I don't know whether it was to correct a typo, or to include the paragraph which explains that you didn't go to a trial by jury and that you were never kept on remand.

Do you understand why your earlier posts gave a completely different inpression?

It was to add the paragraph, and my posts would possibly only give that impression to someone who thinks criticism is the same as an attack, but JC on this thread is coming across a one trick pony whose oversimplified naive opinions needed countering
.

Jamie_Carter

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

My former job.:)

I wasn't stood next to them, I was in a room to the side of where this happened. The officers were not aware I was there until I opened the door and made myself known.

And your former job was?

Jamie_Carter

coolcait wrote: »

Do you understand why your earlier posts gave a completely different inpression?

That's exactly what I was thinking.

coolcait

adouglasmhor wrote: »

It was to add the paragraph, and my posts would possibly only give that impression to someone who thinks criticism is the same as an attack, but JC on this thread is coming across a one trick pony whose oversimplified naive opinions needed countering
.

I don't personally believe that criticism is necessarily the same as an attack.

Although, I do believe that there are times when it can be. As evidenced by this thread, IMO.

When I read, and quoted, your post about being on remand and being found 'not guilty' by a jury, I did think that it read as an account of your personal experience.

So, for me, it was both surprising and shocking to find that your own experience was very different. If anyone else had cried 'liar!' at you, at that point, I would have understood why they did so.

I don't think that you drew a clear enough line between 'this is my experience' and 'this is rhetoric'. It happens. But that doesn't mean that you have the right to blame others for misunderstanding your very unclear post.

As for "one trick ponies" with "oversimplified naive opinions", this thread is a veritable gymkhana! And - given all of the above - I'm afraid that you are definitely one of the competitors. IMO.

DVardysShadow

coolcait wrote: »

.... i'm now confused as to how/why you were released. did a jury find you 'not guilty', or was the case dismissed before it went to court?

He explained. It went to court where it was found there was no case to answer. This would be after legal submissions but before the trial hearings began.

I have seen 2 colleagues go though similar.In both cases hellish experiences which could have lost them their jobs. One was just an inept investigation. The other was a policeman trying to cover for some misdemeanour on his own part as far as we could tell. I am not going into details, but other evidence came to light after committal for trial by the magistrates which again meant that the trial itself never started. A very nasty taste was left by the CPS as I understand it effectively permanently adjourning the trial or not presenting evidence rather than dropping charges. The outcome was that the case had to start in the Crown Court where the judge ruled that my colleague should be released without the CPS having to admit that the case should never have been brought. As I understand it technically the charges against him still stand.

In terms of reviewing what happened, it left the police having lost in court [well you lose some you win some] and the evidence unchallenged, whereas if the CPS had done the right thing by dropping charges, the police would have had to answer for their deceit which was made obvious by the evidence which came to light.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Now you have just proved your ignorance!

Coming from someone so naive, that does not count for much.

coolcait

DVardysShadow wrote: »

He explained. It went to court where it was found there was no case to answer. This would be after legal submissions but before the trial hearings began.

QUOTE]

He did explain. In a paragraph which was added after I had read the original post, clicked 'quote', and acknowledged that I was confused by the discrepancy in his posts.

Whatever the explanation, his post which talked about "being found not guilty by a Jury after 6 months on remand or out on bail with it hanging over you" was hugely misleading, given what actually happened - as explained by you in the part of your post quoted above.

Jamie_Carter

DVardysShadow wrote: »

He explained. It went to court where it was found there was no case to answer. This would be after legal submissions but before the trial hearings began.

I have seen 2 colleagues go though similar.In both cases hellish experiences which could have lost them their jobs. One was just an inept investigation. The other was a policeman trying to cover for some misdemeanour on his own part as far as we could tell. I am not going into details, but other evidence came to light after committal for trial by the magistrates which again meant that the trial itself never started. A very nasty taste was left by the CPS as I understand it effectively permanently adjourning the trial or not presenting evidence rather than dropping charges. The outcome was that the case had to start in the Crown Court where the judge ruled that my colleague should be released without the CPS having to admit that the case should never have been brought. As I understand it technically the charges against him still stand.

In terms of reviewing what happened, it left the police having lost in court [well you lose some you win some] and the evidence unchallenged, whereas if the CPS had done the right thing by dropping charges, the police would have had to answer for their deceit which was made obvious by the evidence which came to light.



Coming from someone so naive, that does not count for much.

For someone who appears to be claiming to be in the legal profession you should know better. So far in this post, you have thrown accusations at two police officers, and myself...well none of those have been proved in court either.

I am not nieve at all, I know the things that have happened in the past, and don't condone any of them. But I also know about the structure of the police, and the lengths they go to in order to bring any rogue officers to book. And I know that most police officers carry out their duty honestly and professionally, withing the constraints of the system (which seems to be where the root of the problem lies).

Anyway we are getting way off topic. As this thread was about a police officer visiting the OP as part of their preliminary investigations into an alleged threat.

DVardysShadow

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

For someone who appears to be claiming to be in the legal profession you should know better.

I think you are too detached from reality to tell me I should know better. I have never claimed to be in the legal profession.

adouglasmhor

coolcait wrote: »

I don't personally believe that criticism is necessarily the same as an attack.

Although, I do believe that there are times when it can be. As evidenced by this thread, IMO.

When I read, and quoted, your post about being on remand and being found 'not guilty' by a jury, I did think that it read as an account of your personal experience.

So, for me, it was both surprising and shocking to find that your own experience was very different. If anyone else had cried 'liar!' at you, at that point, I would have understood why they did so.

I don't think that you drew a clear enough line between 'this is my experience' and 'this is rhetoric'. It happens. But that doesn't mean that you have the right to blame others for misunderstanding your very unclear post.

As for "one trick ponies" with "oversimplified naive opinions", this thread is a veritable gymkhana! And - given all of the above - I'm afraid that you are definitely one of the competitors. IMO.

Ah well I have never claimed to be a genius. Sorry about that. I see where I went wrong, a bit saying "or in my case out on bail for 6 months" then case dismissed after the time I was told to report for trial", would have been clearer.

I had polished my shoes, shaved, had a suit dry cleaned, taken time off work, arranged for my mum and dad to look after the dog if I was sent to gaol and had to pay for a lawyer afterwards.

Jamie_Carter

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I think you are too detached from reality to tell me I should know better. I have never claimed to be in the legal profession.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I thought you were claiming to have represented them in court.

So you actually have no legal training then?

So you are making accusations about the police, based on what you have been told by friends?